Editing Intoxication defense (section)

==Variation==
[[Society|Societies]] have varied in their attitudes and [[Norm (social)|cultural standards]] regarding public [[Substance intoxication|intoxication]], historically based on the relationship between [[religion and drugs]] in general, and [[religion and alcohol]] in particular. In some instances, consumption of a [[psychoactive drug|mind-altering substance]] has formed the basis of [[religion|religious]] or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals. In others, intoxication has been stigmatized as a sign of human weakness, of [[immorality]], or as a [[sin]]. Secular approaches may also vary, having less inherent opposition to drugs but acknowledging that these may affect the [[Social inhibition|inhibition]]s that help to keep socialized individuals from breaking prevailing social [[taboo]]s which may or may not have been expressly criminalized. The attitude of a legal system to intoxicating substances can affect the applicability of intoxication as a defense under its laws: a system strongly opposed to a substance may even view intoxication as an [[Aggravation (law)|aggravating factor]] rather than a mitigating one.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Javed|first1=Azhar|title=Intoxication & Self-defence: A Comparative Study of Principles of English Law and Shari'ah.|url=http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/526/1/uk_bl_ethos_416550.pdf|website=White Rose eTheses Online|publisher=University of Leeds|access-date=19 November 2016|pages=166}}</ref>

The effect of intoxication on criminal responsibility varies by [[Jurisdiction (area)|jurisdiction]] and offense. The [[criminal code]] in question may require proof of various levels of intent. This may range from [[malice aforethought|premeditation]], through various degrees of intent or willingness to commit a crime, general recklessness, and finally no intent at all in some instances of [[strict liability (criminal)|strict liability]]. Intoxication may serve as a defense against proving more specific forms of intent. If so, its potential effectiveness will sometimes hinge on whether the defendant's intoxication was ''voluntary'' or ''involuntary'': the defense would be denied defendants who had voluntarily disabled themselves by knowingly consuming an intoxicating substances, but allowed to those who had consumed it unknowingly or against their will.